DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Coble v. Lacey, 90 N.W.2d 314.

32 citing documents.

  • Mark Kedrowski, Minn. 2019
    (stating that “judgment notwithstanding the verdict will never be granted for errors in either law or procedure committed at the trial”); Eichler v. Equity Farms, Inc., 259 N.W.
  • Dorene Larson, as Trustee for the heirs of Megan Marie Lehner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    But summary judgment is warranted when “the evidence as a whole discloses no reasonable basis upon which the jury could have found [the driver] negligent.” Coble v. Lacey
  • McKay's Family Dodge v. Hardrives, Inc. 480 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • McKay's Family Dodge v. Hardrives, Inc. 480 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    “The rule is well established in this state that judgment notwithstanding the verdict will never be granted for errors in either law or procedure committed at the trial.” Coble v. Lacey, 252 Minn. 423, 433
  • State v. Dittel 464 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Dittel 464 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    Coble v. Lacey, 252 Minn. 423, 432
  • Sauter v. Wasemiller 364 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Sauter v. Wasemiller 364 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    51 ("An error in the instructions with respect to fundamental law or controlling principle may be assigned in a motion for a new trial though it was not otherwise called to the attention of the court.”) See e.g., Coble v. Lacey, 252 Minn. 423
  • Veld v. Steffl 363 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Veld v. Steffl 363 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    See Coble v. Lacey, 252 Minn. 423, 431 , -21 (1958).
  • Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 332 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 1983
  • Milbank Mutual Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 332 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 1983
    Olson v. Penkert, 252 Minn. 334, 350 , Coble v. Lacey, 252 Minn. 423, 433 , Northwestern Marble & Tile Co. v. Williams, 128 Minn. 514, 515-16 , 151 N.W.
  • Lesmeister v. Dilly 330 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1983
  • Lesmeister v. Dilly 330 N.W.2d 95 Minn. 1983
    320 , 66 L.Ed.2d 149 (1980); Coble v. Lacey, 252 Minn. 423, 433
  • Wolner v. Mahaska Industries, Inc. 325 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1982
  • Wolner v. Mahaska Industries, Inc. 325 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1982
    Erickson v. Sorenson, 297 Minn, at 455, d at 885 ; Coble v. Lacey, 252 Minn. 423, 433
  • Gryc Ex Rel. Gryc v. Dayton-Hudson Corp. 297 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 1980
  • Gryc Ex Rel. Gryc v. Dayton-Hudson Corp. 297 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 1980
    Co., 285 Minn. 15, 20 , this court cited with approval Coble v. Lacey, 252 Minn. 423, 433 , in which we stated the following principle: [Djespite errors of fundamental law or controlling principle a trial court’s charge to the jury becomes the law of the case and is not subject to attack or review on appeal when such fundamental errors have not been * * * called to the atten
  • Rome v. Rome 239 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1976
  • Rome v. Rome 239 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1976
    W. 364 (1939) (could have seen car which began skidding at 300 feet, saw it in wrong lane at 85 feet, issue of negligence a jury question); Ranum v. Swenson, 220 Minn. 170 , (saw at 50 to 100 feet, jury question) ; Kapla v. Lehti, 225 Minn. 325 , (could have seen at 1,400 feet, saw at 60 feet, jury question); Coble v. Lacey, 252 *210 Minn. 423, 431, (“Even though Tina Larson had negligently entered the north lane of the highway upon which Lacey was traveling, he was not relieved from the duty to
  • Fiwka v. Johannes 177 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1970
  • Fiwka v. Johannes 177 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1970
    Coble v. Lacey, 252 Minn. 423, 430 , 90 N. W. (2d) 314, 320 ; Jude v. Jude, 199 Minn. 217 , .
  • Baldwin v. CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY CO. 171 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1969
  • Baldwin v. CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY CO. 171 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1969
    An error in the instructions with respect to fundamental law or controlling principle may be assigned in a motion for a new trial though it was not otherwise called to the attention of the court.” We held in Coble v. Lacey, 252 Minn. 423, 433 , 90 N. W. (2d) 314, 322 , that— “* * * despite errors of fundamental law or controlling principle a trial court’s charge to the jury becomes the law of the case and is not subject to attack or review on appeal when such fundamental errors have not been sea
  • Merrill v. Kjelgren 160 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 1968
  • Merrill v. Kjelgren 160 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 1968
    McMillen v. Meyer, 246 Minn. 132 , 74 *460 N. W. (2d) 393; Norton v. Nelson, 236 Minn. 237 , 53 N. W. (2d) 31 ; Coble v. Lacey, 252 Minn. 423 , 90 N. W. (2d) 314 ; 8B Dunnell, Dig.
  • Village of Roseville v. Markham 127 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1964
  • Village of Roseville v. Markham 127 N.W.2d 507 Minn. 1964
    Coble v. Lacey, 252 Minn. 423 , 90 N. W. (2d) 314 , and cases cited; Rule 51, Rules of Civil Procedure.
  • Pogalz v. Kenna 126 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1964
  • Pogalz v. Kenna 126 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1964
    Smith v. Otto Hendrickson Post 212, American Legion, 241 Minn. 46 , 62 N. W. (2d) 354 ; Coble v. Lacey, 252 Minn. 423 , 90 N. W. (2d) 314 .
  • Waldstein v. Amann 208 N.W.2d 215 Minn. 1961
  • Waldstein v. Amann 208 N.W.2d 215 Minn. 1961
    “Failure by such person driving on his own side of the road, as aforesaid to exercise such due care, in avoiding a collision, if you find that he faded to exercise such due care, constitutes negligence on the part of such driver and bars his recovery rights.” He cites Kapla v. Lehti, 225 Minn. 325 , 30 N. W. (2d) 685 , and Coble v. Lacey, 252 Minn. 423 , 90 N. W. (2d) 314 , in support of his position.